Recumbent Accident Rates?

On May 5, 6:58*pm, "Tom Lake (Space Alien)" wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:14:54 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank



Krygowski wrote:
No, Tom, my parents never forced me to wear a helmet. *Bike helmets
did not exist until I was long out of my parents' control, legal or
otherwise.

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.

When someone enters the discussion and states things that I know to be
false, I point out the mistakes.

About accepting positions: *I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. *And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. *I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

Haha... you're too smart for me, Frank.

Yes, probably.

What's the deal with "purple riding shorts"? *I haven't mentioned
them. *Why bring up the color of someone's clothing?

You didn't mention them any more than we mentioned smoking. However,
you saw fit to introduce some points regarding smoking as (rather
weak) illustrative examples. I saw fit to introduce purple riding
shorts as another item you're free to wear.

Why do you think that *I*, with a paltry five or six postings about
bicycle helmets have "deeply held beliefs"?

OK, I'll admit that your belief in helmets may not be extremely deep
compared with some others who post here. It's clear, though, that you
have beliefs deep enough for you to feel you should instruct us in
their correctness. I think that counts for something.

I suspect that the normal people on this group are getting tired of
this.

As always, they are free to stop reading whenever they like. (I'm
always astounded at people who think a discussion should stop because
they don't happen to find it interesting - and who lack the self-
control to stop reading!)

Bye, Earthling. *But you *will* be refuted!

That sounds like a deeply held belief to me!

*Your children will wear helmets, mark my words. *

Last I checked, they wore them only when on invitational rides that
made them mandatory. An as adults, they have freedom to choose.
Hopefully, that will continue to be true, despite your belief.

- Frank Krygowski

On May 5, 9:15*pm, Tom Lake wrote:


As for New Zealand, you'll find studies all over the map. *I can cite
contradictory findings by the same researcher; try these: Scuffham,
1995 the year after the law went into effect; compare that to the same
author's 2000 and 2002 studies with six and eight years' worth of
data. *Are they still post facto studies? *Absolutely. *Both have the
same limitations. *I'll bet you wave one of them (the one with which
you agree) and pronounce the others "discredited"... that's the usual
drill, anyway. *It's called "cherry picking", BTW and Usenet is
positively rife with it.

That's merely a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "statistics
can prove anything." It's pretending that humans are incapable of
rationally evaluating studies, data and conclusions.

Scuffham and his flip-flops have been discussed here before. And
while I don't know for sure (although he mailed his first paper on
this topic to me personally), I suspect he got in some professional
trouble by pointing out that an examination of all available hospital
records in his country showed no helmet benefit - only a decades-long
decrease in percent hospitalizations due to head injury, long
predating helmet use. He did, after all, work for the very agency
that was promoting the all-ages mandatory helmet law. Can you imagine
publishing a paper that proved your bosses' biggest effort was a sham?

In any case, his subsequent paper saying "Wait, I found a benefit!"
was thoroughly, mathematically rebutted by Robinson, who pointed out
that instead of examining the entire time series data, he simply
picked a tiny selection of data points and removed the time
coefficient that he'd previously discovered. THAT is cherry picking,
as classic as it gets.

Again, all this has been discussed. Yes, we can cite the specific
papers. Perhaps you should do some reading, to catch up. You might
start he
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki..._helmet_portal

- Frank Krygowski

On May 5, 9:54*pm, Tom Lake wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 01:51:32 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee

wrote:
No, that is incorrect.
There are studies showing risk compensation as a result of foam hat
use, and most worrying of all, that it occurs among motorists as well.

Absolute nonsense!

More cherry-picking is all.

Oh. Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive!

What have you read on this subject?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 5, 6:58 pm, "Tom Lake (Space Alien)" wrote:

Haha... you're too smart for me, Frank.

Yes, probably.

Frank, your modesty is overwhelming.

JS.

On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:



Why do people keep promoting an ineffective solution to a largely
nonexistent problem?

- Frank Krygowski


I can certainly agree that bicycle head injuries are rare. I am a
member of the "over-the-handlebars" club and it wasn't a lot of fun
smashing my head against the sidewalk. Now, just in case, I do wear a
helmet. Simply because I don't want to end up with a more serious
injury than what I had then.

Thanks for your input, but I'll continue to wear one!!!!! I do
avoid the spandex pants though!!!!!

On 05/05/11 02:28, kolldata wrote:
i am lost on the anti helmet logic.

Mistake #1, it's not "anti helmet" unless you're being told you really
shouldn't wear one.

Injury when bringing head to a
sudden stop when brain continues is a sure thing, only severity is
unknown same as bumper crash tests.

So since there's plenty of head-trauma from bringing brains to sudden
stops from trips and falls, especially on stairs, then it's "obviously"
a given that you'll wear a crash helmet to go down stairs, or even to
walk along hard paved places?

As it happens, cycling isn't particularly more productive of head
injuries than pedestrianism. So the /helmet-sceptic/ logic is if you
don't wear one for a similarly risky alternative why should you feel a
particular need to wear one for cycling?

who coined the word use age ?

Dunno. Guess not the 80 year old I often see cycling round Dundee
without one. Guess not the 90 year old Dr. Alex Moulton who goes for a
10 mile ride every day, also without one. And so on (and on).
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 05/05/11 04:45, Tom Lake wrote:

But I fail to understand why anyone would suggest that proper shoes do
not reduce foot injuries... it's counter intuitive.

Next to me is a gait and footwear research centre. Chatting with
verious Indian gentlemen in there about foot injuries in India where
there are significant numbers of both shod and unshod people, there is
apparently a significantly greater injury record for those that wear shoes.

Counter-intuitive is not the same as "wrong".

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Helmet
laws haven't exactly worked; however, protective equipment certainly
does.

So where are the casualty savings?

All I'm saying is that protective equipment generally
works.

It was "certainly" just now... but still, where are the casualty savings?

Helmets work great at stuff like bashing tree-branches out of your way
without getting a scratch or bump off-road, but if they generally helped
on the road for A to B cycling then there needs to be a reason why
serious head injury rates fail to decrease as more of them are worn.
"It's counter intuitive" is not actually good enough (even though I
agree that it is indeed counter-intuitive).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 5/6/2011 4:11 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
[...
Dunno. Guess not the 80 year old I often see cycling round Dundee
without one. Guess not the 90 year old Dr. Alex Moulton who goes for a
10 mile ride every day, also without one. And so on (and on).[...]

Which model does he ride?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:56:23 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

We have been over the problems with Scuffham changing conclusions many
times. Comparing rates over 4 decades apart is hardly them same as comparing
consecutive years before and after Liddite™ mandatory foam bicycle hat
use implementation.

My point was that studies on the efficacy of protective clothing span
a wide range of findings. By carefully choosing findings that support
*my* side of the discussion and dismissing those which tend not to, I
can "prove" just about anything.

That tactic isn't new to studies of protective clothing. In fact, any
topic that doesn't lend itself to an experimental method (abortion,
the death penalty, gun control, and auto seat belts come to mind) will
tend to that type of debate.

Scuffham finds helmets don't work and you wave his work like the US
flag at Ground Zero. Later, he looks at more data and finds something
else. "That study is INVALID!" you say. I say that whether a study
is valid or not depends on whether or not it supports your prejudice,
not on its data and methods.

But, then... having been around Usenet a few days, I expected that.
In a day or so, I'll move on. I can only argue about something as
trivial as this for a short time.

On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:48:29 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

That's merely a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "statistics
can prove anything." It's pretending that humans are incapable of
rationally evaluating studies, data and conclusions.

Scuffham and his flip-flops have been discussed here before. And
while I don't know for sure (although he mailed his first paper on
this topic to me personally), I suspect he got in some professional
trouble by pointing out that an examination of all available hospital
records in his country showed no helmet benefit - only a decades-long
decrease in percent hospitalizations due to head injury, long
predating helmet use. He did, after all, work for the very agency
that was promoting the all-ages mandatory helmet law. Can you imagine
publishing a paper that proved your bosses' biggest effort was a sham?

In any case, his subsequent paper saying "Wait, I found a benefit!"
was thoroughly, mathematically rebutted by Robinson, who pointed out
that instead of examining the entire time series data, he simply
picked a tiny selection of data points and removed the time
coefficient that he'd previously discovered. THAT is cherry picking,
as classic as it gets.

Again, all this has been discussed. Yes, we can cite the specific
papers. Perhaps you should do some reading, to catch up. You might
start he

Statistics certainly *can* show that A causes B; however, that kind of
study can't.

Bicycle helmets aren't exactly a multi-billion dollar industry. Heck,
I can show you identical discussions on handgun safety devices. There
was quite a similar set of studies where one found one thing and the
other contradicted the original. The one finding they worked was
attributed to money from people wanting to sell safety devices. I'm
sure Scuffham was visited at night by helmet industry goons who
threatened his family yadayadayada...

Actually, this topic is starting to bore me. I can't think of a more
trivial topic on which to spend years and thousands of postings.